Blogs that update you on current affairs are very useful. After a good read, go to www.casinorating.com.au for fun casino games.

Additional:

Persons can tell the developer, which are considered to be important. So far there have not been feature requests [Sept-2003]:

Bug fixes and new configuration options. Persons maybe have to write. There could be more bugs than any user would possibly want.
A readline in loop, at the client end, allowing reconfiguring of the ‘track’ connections without any closing of the 2 main threads.
Port number blocking in the server. It is missing since I had not written code to read in a file from “./”
FTP support. Possibly I would use Juniper code may be the best option. (The general problem is that the FTP client discloses its own IP number through the proxy, and then FTP server connects back to the client instead of the proxy. The server proxy does not get the connection, and anyway, it lacks code lacks code to handle any returning FTP connection.)Muxing over a single port 443 https thread. Getting unidirectional data over HTTP/1.1 ought be running first since encryption is a minor thing to the webserver, which would use the same CGI code whether I/O is encrypted or not.
Muxing over a large number threads. That could permit fast gaming in Europe.
Supprot for authentication and/or the Socks protocol of NEC.
The software might be put into a plug-in and provide multiplexing to some other program.

I am withholding the source code. There is possibility that proxy will be crippled so that it does not proxy violent fight-persons’ games in China.

A lot of the Ada code of the proxy is actually already online, here: http://ijs.co.nz/code/. The multiplexing and CGI code is withheld. There is some Ada code to parse incoming HTTP/1.0 headers.

Here is a sample *BSD/Linux script “xt” that an xterm window that resembles Windows 2000’s CMD.EXE’s:

Supplement to Issue 1 of Flame Magazine: The Death Of Princess Diana in 1997: http://www.flamemag.dircon.co.uk/ supplement_one_contents.htm

The death of Princess Diana: What caused the crash at the Point d’Alma ?. Seán Mac Mathúna, John Heathcote: http://www.flamemag.dircon.co.uk/diana.htm:
… it’s possible that one of the vehicles (a white Fiat Uno) rams the Mercedes just before the crash “causing it to spin out of control” (The Guardian, November 13th, 1997). As the Mercedes gets nearer the tunnel, a motorbike prevents one car (driven by Brenda Wells) from taking the approach road that leads to the tunnel. It’s possible that a remote-controlled device was used – causing an explosion (reported by CNN) which was heard by witnesses – that disabled the driving controls and electronics of the Mercedes. A strobe light was also used to disable the driver on the final seconds before it entered the tunnel – which some witnesses claim was completely dark as the lights had been tuned off minutes earlier.
After hearing an explosion and then a bang, witnesses ran to the scene – only to be told to “back off” by an unknown person to runs towards them out of the tunnel from the direction of the crashed car. A second person, whose identity is also unknown, was seen in the Mercedes removing the drivers head off the car horn. Witnesses also report that a helicopter was seen above just before the crash – was it monitoring events on the ground ? As the electricity has been cut in the tunnel [according to the Lobster (winter 1999), link], the traffic cameras don’t work, thus ensuring there is no video evidence of the Mercedes final approach to the tunnel, or what vehicles can be seen leaving it. One witness, Gary Hunter saw two vehicles race out of the tunnel, others saw a motorbike.
A car was used to block the route of the Mercedes thus forcing it onto the road that leads to the tunnel at the Point d’Alma as witnessed by Thierry H;
At least one of the paparazzi on a fast motorbike chasing the Mercedes was working for MI6 (Tomlinson)

At least two cars may have been involved in causing the crash (one may have carried personnel that used a strobe light to blind the driver (Brenda Wells) another may have used some kind of electronic interference device that seized up the cars electronics (potentially up to four people);
Witnesses saw a helicopter above just before the crash – was it monitoring events on the ground and relaying them back to a control centre (the British Embassy where Tomlinson claims that up to six MI6 officers were stationed over that weekend) ?;
Who was the motorcyclist who forced Brenda Wells off the road ?
Who were the two people seen near the Mercedes seconds after the crash, and before the paparazzi and stunned onlookers reached the scene ?.

The death of Diana’s bodyguard Barry Mannakee in 1987: http://www.flamemag.dircon.co.uk/diana_mannakee.htm: [Princess Diana’a] bodyguard Barry Mannakee (who is rumoured to have become her lover in 1985) died in unexplained motorbike crash in 1987. Afterwards, according to the former Conservative MP Charles Wardle, Diana feared for her life. In a speech in the House of Commons (Hansard, 22nd June 1999), Wardle stated:
“Diana’s remarks to Al Fayed concerned the royal household’s antipathy to her; its habitually close links with the security services; the manipulation, interference, and control, as she saw it, exercised by official’s of the household; her conviction, based on what she said she had been told, that Barry Mannakee’s death was not an accident; and her apprehension that she, too, would be assassinated”

It should be possible to wheel under AV, the guiding principles that led to that method which negates the votes of voters. To keep it simple, the papers can be (AB), (B), and (C). Here are a sequence of rules that get weaker as the line dividing the B-wins region and the C-wins region, is rotated in an anti-clockwise direction: Rule no.1: IFPP stopped C from becoming a loser when (AB) papers were re-marked (i.e. changed) into (C) papers. Rule no.2: The Alternative Vote allows that, but it stops C from changing from a winner into a loser when (C) papers are added. This seems to be known under the name of “the participation axiom”. The rule is stating the purpose that corresponds to the line (half-flat) that contains both point (C) and the centre of the triangle. Rule no.3: The next rule in the sequence describes a horizontal line extending to the right from the centre of the triangle. B wins on the underside and C ins above that. It is still outside of the A-wins region. It would require that candidate C is never harmed by altering (B) papers into (C) papers. The rule also says that re-marking (C) papers into (B) papers, does not cause B to change into a loser. With the text of no. 2, an axiom of the Alternative Vote is identified. The 3 rules listed just above don’t say anything if they are finding the support rise is slightly impure. In general it would be impure. This webpage shows that a large support rise for a candidate is contaminated with a support rise for another, that is 84 ppm (parts per million; 5/60,005), in size: http://ijs.co.nz/irv-wrong-winners.htm. The example of the page has these traits: (1) the paper of the main support rise lack a 2nd preference; (2) the support rise swelled the number of papers by 60%; (3) of the papers added, 84ppm was for a different candidate. (4) The support rise was 37.5% in size when the denominator is the number of papers in the 2nd election. IRV has conditions on its providing of fairness, that are able to be impossible to comply with. A small failure of mayors (say), to get their support rise nearly perfectly pure, can leave them with a need to get an extra 3/8th (the sequence seems to be (n-1)/(2n)). However a similar problem can occur with rule no.1 (followed by IFPP) when impurities appear in allowed change, because the line segment is similarly long and nearly tangent/parallel to the surface. The existence of impure support rises suggests that rules ought be a bit stronger than required, since the next weaker holds. Reading about the state of affairs around the globe can be tiresome. Look for Superb casinos online that have a variety of fun games. If the aim was to have a rule requiring no harming occurs when nearly pure support is added, then a stronger rule would be used. That leads into a problem: if the desire of the hypothetical designer of AV was actually to impose the 3rd rule, then how would a generalisation of the 3rd rule be worded so it does not also impose a generalisation of the much stronger 1st rule ?. The 1st and 3rd rules can be defined with these words: “If the candidate loses when being named by the 1st preference, then no re-marking of the ballot paper can make that candidate win”. That could be named the “First Preference Loser” “FPL” rule. For the 9 papers of 3 candidate 1 winner elections, FPL implies 9 tests and the Alternative Vote passes only 8. FPL seems to be genuinely desirable and a person could be of a weak intellect if preferring Rob & the CVD’s IRV method (caveat emptor). Justice has the very sort of qualities that the 50% or so who were wrongly stripped of equal suffrage rights (under a STV/IRV/etc. election), may find proper and virtuous if concluding that IRV is contrary to all that man knows as good (overlooking the random selection of jurors). The purpose behind one of the surfaces of the AV/IRV flats is reconstructed despite how the method had no designer, and then it seems just something that would not be explained to a public much. Perhaps there was no backup ideal behind the rather dubious ideal of rule no.2 with the latter failing to stop the negating of votes when he (no 2nd preferences) support is tainted with impurity (the foremost enemy is being elevated with a force of 84ppm). This document does not provide the missing IRV backup purpose behind rule no.2. (A purpose indicated only by the slope of a polytope object and it is independent of its position in the space representing votes.) Though the list seems to show that rule no.3 is backup rule guaranteeing fairness when rule no.2 is wiped out with an impure support rise, it is not the case that rule no.3 was defined. That is because the text suggested that rule no.3 be defined with the very reasonable FPL rule. But that is not a weaker rule since AV/IRV is failed by that rule, and anyway, the stronger rule no.1 is also implied by FPL. So far as IRV is concerned, rule no.1 can be defined so that compliance with it (no matter how many winners and candidates) implies compliance with the FPL rule. As soon as voters hear that some weak fairness guarantee of IRV (rule no.2), and then hear that IRV does not even provide that, then a question is: what is the even weaker assurance of fairness, or is there actually no fairness there?.

Methods that are not monotonic appear to negate votes: as the popularity rises, the candidate changes from a winner into a loser. The Alternative Vote is not monotonic. The local behaviour of a preferential voting method can be modelled with an algorithm that: (a) applies weighting numbers to the counts of the ballot papers, and that then (b) adds those products to subtotals. The Alternative Vote can exhibit an apparent weighting of -0.5. The actual algorithm only has positive weights.

Methods that are not monotonic can demand that voters (papers) vote insincerely or else lose power.

Sometimes, reading about the latest events in the world can be depressing. Why not take your mind off it all by playing a round of casino games at www.casinoguy.ca?

A delegation from the European Parliament on Sunday labelled as “problematic” China’s attitude towards re-kindling talks with the Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama.

In a speech delivered to the European Parliament last October, the exiled Dalai Lama had met conditions previously laid out by China as a pre-requisite for talks, but Beijing had not accepted the gesture, the delegation said.

“To our mind, he (Dalai Lama) came up to these conditions. He renounced independence, he acknowledged the One-China principle,” delegation member Per Gahrton told a news conference.

“To our minds, that creates a problem — you make certain conditions and the person you put the conditions to fulfils them and you then repeat that he has not fulfilled them.”

China censured the European Parliament after it invited the Dalai Lama to speak in Strasbourg and charged that the Tibetan leader in exile was using religion as a cover for political separatism.

The European Parliament had renewed calls to China to strike up talks with the Dalai Lama in meetings with National People’s Congress Chairman Li Peng and Vice Premier Qian Qichen in Beijing, Gahrton said.

The Dalai Lama, revered by Tibetans as the latest reincarnation of a long line of Buddhist kings, has said for many years he is seeking greater autonomy, not independence, for Tibet and is ready to begin talks.

China, which reviles the man who fled to India in 1959 with thousands of supporters after an uprising against Beijing’s rule, says he is insincere.

Following the meetings in the Chinese capital, delegates visited the remote Himalayan region where they encountered concerns over human rights.

Comments by the director of Lhasa’s Drapchi prison revealed that reduction of punishments doled out on inmates depended on good behaviour and confessions, defined as renouncing claims of independence and condemning the “splittist Dalai clique,” Gahrton said.

China has released a few Tibetan activists from jail in recent years, including Tanak Jigme Sangpo who was freed nine years early on medical grounds in March and who arrived in the United States to seek treatment for heart disease on Saturday.

On Reformers’ defending of not reforming STV and IRV, by dismissing monotonicity

Monotonicity tends to be briefly dismissed by promoters the Alternative Vote, STV, and IRV. Here are arguments for the case that monotonicity is correct and it really does fail the Alternative Vote.

(1) It seems that for the 1 winner Alternative Vote, there is only one rule that would reshape IRV, and that is monotonicity. It is a 1 winner method so rules considering 2 candidates at one don’t say anything. It is not known to be corrupt. To reject the last and only rule that would fix IRV if reshaping it, is a plan to not reform the method.

(2) Monotonicity is about the only rule that causes the n-th preference to sacrifice the interests of the next. It is monotonicity that causes preferences to have a reducing importance along the list from the 1st to the last. Monotonicity not only fails the IRV method but it is the source of the political acceptable character of IRV. The IRV & STV voting methods are not to be defended by suggesting that monotonicity is dismissed

(3) IRV tends to assist any wrong candidates when there is a close race, e.g. between 3 candidates. The word ‘wrong’ is a comparison with a monotonic method.

(4) The advocate that wanted to dismiss the idea that monotonicity is important since it fails IRV or STV, could instead get a Real-valued measurement of the size of the failure.

The Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy (TCHRD) today released a report entitled “Drapchi Prison: Tibet’s Most Dreaded Prison”. The 70-page report provides insight into one of the most notorious prisons in Chinese-occupied Tibet based on reliable information gathered over the years.

“Through this report, one can discern the contradiction between the official Chinese statement with that of actual reality concerning the prison condition, treatment of prisoners, and total number of Tibetan political prisoners within Tibet,” stated Mr. Lobsang Nyandak Zayul, the Executive Director of TCHRD.

Contrary to a recent claim made by a top-notch official that Tibet has currently only 115 Tibetan political prisoners, TCHRD recorded 252 known Tibetan political prisoners as of June 2001. From the total figure, 129 political prisoners remain incarcerated in Drapchi Prison alone, including 26 female political prisoners.

All these prisoners who serve out their sentences in various prisons, detention centres and labour camps in Tibet are charged with “endangering state security” which involves partaking in political activities such as pro-independence demonstration, poster pasting incident and for possessing photos and videos of the Dalai Lama. The denial of basic human rights is apparent from the reasons for arrest and the inhuman treatment meted out to them while in detention and during imprisonment.

There have been cases where prisoners have succumbed to injuries from severe beatings and official maltreatment. Since 1987, 27 deaths occurred in Drapchi Prison and 47 political prisoners received sentence extension on alleged charges of non-conformity and disobedience to prison rules and regulations.

The report details 21 protest incidents both major and minor within Drapchi Prison initiated by individuals or by group as a whole. The largest and consequently the most violently suppressed of all protests have been the May 1998 protest that resulted in the known death of eight political prisoners and sentence extension of many more.

“Entrapped in the meshed wires of hapless prison system, the only recourse that the prisoners can take to vent their pent-up feeling is through protest and demonstration. The severity of punishment in the form of beatings and sentence extension never seem to dull the freedom spirit of the Tibetans,” said Mr. Lobsang Nyandak Zayul.

With the Chinese annexation of Tibet in 1959, Drapchi military garrison was transformed into a prison though it retained the semblance of army camp well into the early sixties. Drapchi Prison has over the years, mutely witnessed Chinese brutality and beatings, death and deceit, from the days of Chinese invasion in the 50’s, down to the infamous Cultural Revolution of 60’s and 70’s to the 80’s active pro-independence period up till the present times.

This is a copy of a message the author posted to the Politicians and Polytopes mailing list (message 141). A constraint on voting methods of +/- 45 degrees maximum tilt deviation from First Past the Post (FPTP), is arrived at.

‘FPL’ means the ‘First Preference Loser’ rule, as illustrated by the example at the bottom which fails it. It stops a FPTP vote for a candidate making the candidate lose. The P4 rule is a rule to keep the infinitesimal power of preferential voting papers (e.g. STV papers) compliant with this idea: 0<=power<=1. That is not a genuine formula since “power” is not defined (but P4 somewhat is). The “0<=power” component is similar to monotonicity. STV and the Alternative Vote fail at both the “0” and “1” ends.

The monotonicity rule can be enhanced and united with the rule ‘Truncation Resistance’ saying that following preferences do not affect the win-lose states of candidates of earlier preferences (i.e. preferences nearer the 1st), by doing this: rewriting the definition above to allow all preferences between the preference for X, and the end of the paper, to be scrambled.

It is more convenient to ignore monotonicity and use the rule of the paragraph above.